Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28653043›Full record

ArticleBioactive materials2016

Bioactive polymeric scaffolds for tissue engineering.

Scott Stratton, Namdev B Shelke, Kazunori Hoshino, Swetha Rudraiah, Sangamesh G Kumbar

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bioactive materials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 157 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
157citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

157 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Scaling Cultured Meat: Challenges and Solutions for Affordable Mass Production.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025
    Review
  20. Incorporation of Poly(propylene succinate-ACS applied bio materials · 2025
    Article

97 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Scott StrattonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
Namdev B ShelkeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
Kazunori HoshinoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Swetha RudraiahDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Saint Joseph, Hartford, CT, 06103, USA.
Sangamesh G KumbarDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, USA.

Funding

Nanofiber based artificial nerve graft for peripheral nerve regenerationR03NS058595 · NINDS · THE TRUSTEES OF THE STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI YU, XIAOJUN · 2009 to 2010
$157k
NINDS NIH HHS R03 NS058595
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A variety of engineered scaffolds have been created for tissue engineering using polymers, ceramics and their composites. Biomimicry has been adopted for majority of the three-dimensional (3D) scaffold design both in terms of physicochemical properties, as well as bioactivity for superior tissue regeneration. Scaffolds fabricated via salt leaching, particle sintering, hydrogels and lithography have been successful in promoting cell growth

Indexed as

BioactiveBiodegradableBiomaterialsPorosityScaffoldTissue regeneration

Identifiers

PMID28653043
PMCPMC5482547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.